I'm having an issue right now. There is this group I play tabletop games with over Internet Relay Chat. One of the GMs there proposed to start a 4e game that looked interesting enough, and after a pair of, euphemistically speaking, disappointing games, I still wanted to convince myself that I could play a good 4e game, and that I was just being unlucky.
But things don't seem to start well. The DM in question has already faced me and told me that the game is gonna be divided in groups, he has shoehorned me into one of them and then argued that I must make a Leader roled character because there are not enough Leaders in that group. I keep telling him that what I want to do is be a DPT/Striker character because that is what I like to do when I play games like these. Yet he tells me that I can't because the group needs to be 'balanced' and for that it needs one more Leader. And this when everyone else was allowed to do what they wanted.
How should I deal with this? Should I try to keep reasoning with him that I want to be a Striker and that shoehorning me into a Leader role is gonna make me unhappy? Or should I just say 'Screw you!', drop out and hope for a DM that doesn't want to force me to play what he wants?
I've run a group who wanted to be leaderless. They all teamed up to track down a wanted mage but because they all had their own reasons for taking down the mage no one wanted to be "leader" or ruled by a leader, so they worked as a team and voted on issues.
However as DM I needed one player to speak for the group, someone to tell me what their final answer to my questions. Is the DM asking you to be the speaker for your group or a role-playing leader role in the group?
Normally a DM will make one character the leader when all their duties are really just being speaker for the group. It doesn't make you responsible for bad decisions because most of the time you'll be making decisions as a group.
I could never understand why people would want to play online with a group of strangers. Do you have any friends you can play with? People who are like-minded, that you get along with and know you.
I've run a group who wanted to be leaderless. They all teamed up to track down a wanted mage but because they all had their own reasons for taking down the mage no one wanted to be "leader" or ruled by a leader, so they worked as a team and voted on issues.
However as DM I needed one player to speak for the group, someone to tell me what their final answer to my questions. Is the DM asking you to be the speaker for your group or a role-playing leader role in the group?
Normally a DM will make one character the leader when all their duties are really just being speaker for the group. It doesn't make you responsible for bad decisions because most of the time you'll be making decisions as a group.
Erm... That was not the scope of my question. I didn't mean leader as in, the 'leader of the group', but leader in the sense of character role during combat. You know, the support/healer/buffer. 'Leader' is the term for classes that specialize in that in D&D 4e.
And I play over IRC because I have few off-net friends and they don't play tabletop RPGs. Plus, who is to say that the people I meet over the Internet can't be my friends? I should note that I have known the people in that community for a very long time and most of us all get along fairly well even though we have moments were we clash.
If you have enough players to split into groups why don't you just run a different game separate to this DM you don't like?
Sorry, I don't play 4e, I thought that was what you were talking about it just didn't click.
If you have enough players to split into groups why don't you just run a different game separate to this DM you don't like?
Previous-E Translation:
"You have to play a cleric."
Still, I wouldn't shoehorn any of my players into a role they don't want to play.
What are the other classes in the group?
In 4e, General is a Martial Leader class. It uses powers based on the Martial power source that revolve around buffing and healing.
Barbarian, Warlock and Ranger are Strikers. That is, DPT (Damage Per Turn). They focus on dealing a lot of damage to a single enemy or a very small group of enemies.
Fighter is a Defender. That is, a Tank. It makes enemies focus their attacks on it, and takes the blunt of damage.
Clerics are totally underrated.
Underrated or not, if you don't wanna play one, you don't wanna play one.
There are resources for finding groups to play with online. You could also try to get in on the VT beta, I think, which has some online games still going (or did last I checked).
And it sounds like you've got other games going on already, so it's probably not a big deal if this one falls through. 4e is a great game, and beyond any doubt my favorite DnD, but if you can't find an online group for it that suits you, then I'd suggest just continuing to enjoy the other games you can find.
Thanks for your help. I'll keep your advice in mind for the next time someone tries to tell me to play something I don't want.
Well, I have talked about my predicament with someone else, and she has pretty much told me the same as you, tell this guy to go buzz himself and back off the game. And as a bonus, she has pointed me towards a game she's gonna DM that looks promising. So I'm just gonna do that.
Thanks for your help. I'll keep your advice in mind for the next time someone tries to tell me to play something I don't want.
Or.... When "forced" to play a certain role? Make it your own & do your own thing with it.
Ex; In previous editions Clerics only healed/buffed when they chose the correct spells. Otherwise....
"Oh, I'm sorry, YOU mistook me for a healer...." I was still 100% usefull within the party, but nobody ever tried to make me play the cleric again against my wishes.
I assume you can do the same within 4e.
as DM i understand your DM because if the group is unbalanced every "easy" encounter could be a TPK and all the future planning become obsolete....
I tried to play a Leader character and the only thing I managed is get the party killed because I just strode forward and tried to take on the enemy like a mix of Defender and Striker. I simply can't play a Leader. And I was sure that everyone in our community knew that.
Also, you say there is a General (I'm assuming you mean a Warlord/Marshal?) in the party. So what's this guy on about? There is a capable Leader in the party. If anything, it could use a Controller.
Yeah, everyone plays to have fun. If you don't have fun playing a certain type of character, nobody should make you.
Also, you say there is a General (I'm assuming you mean a Warlord/Marshal?) in the party. So what's this guy on about? There is a capable Leader in the party. If anything, it could use a Controller.
Doesn't mean there's enough leaders for a party of that size. With two fighters, a Barbarian, and two squishies, another leader wouldn't be a bad idea.
But yea, I agree, he should've checked to make sure no one else wanted to play another leader instead of forcing it upon you. With three different strikers I'm sure you could've traded duty with one of them...
If you absolutely WANT to play in that guy's game, and MUST be a leader, I'd read up on how to optimize a Bravara Warlord and make him regret the decision. Nothing like a leader who is capable of doing strike-esque damage on his own XD
And I agree with pluisjen that he should be suggesting a controller. That group especially since it looks like no one in that group is even close to minoring in controller, except possibly the warlock (who will be single target) and maybe one of the fighters. The bigger the group the bigger the need for a controller since the DM is going to be throwing more enemies at you.
Talk to the other players and see if one of them will step up?
FWIW a runepriest can do some low striker level damage, bump the whole groups damage numbers, and still heal some. Might be a decent compromise.
I have no problem with a DM saying "We need a balanced party, 1 of every role please" but its a shame that you got forced into it.
If you really can't reach an agreement, walk. Thats what a DM who lays out his restrictions early on is saying. "I want to run a game with these rules" if you don't want to play that game don't start it.
The group has 7 people. 1 Barbarian, 1 Warlock, 1 Ranger, 2 Fighters, 1 General, all level 8. And then there is me.
In 4e, General is a Martial Leader class. It uses powers based on the Martial power source that revolve around buffing and healing.
Barbarian, Warlock and Ranger are Strikers. That is, DPT (Damage Per Turn). They focus on dealing a lot of damage to a single enemy or a very small group of enemies.
Fighter is a Defender. That is, a Tank. It makes enemies focus their attacks on it, and takes the blunt of damage.
It actually looks like the party needs a Controller. Though that may not be any better for you since you want to be a Striker. If he's concerned with having a balanced party I find it odd he didn't make you go for that. You may try to talk to one of the Strikers and see if they would be willing to change instead.
If not you have two choices.
1. Figure out if there is a Leader you would enjoy playing. 4E has taken strides and the Leader is no longer just a heal bot. You do get to do other things. Though you won't get the highest DPR.
2. Walk. It's unfortunate but sometimes the group dynamics just don't work.
as player i have a Warlord character althought i am huge fan of Avengers and Rangers, but there is no "I" in team. that means no space for Egos....
as DM i understand your DM because if the group is unbalanced every "easy" encounter could be a TPK and all the future planning become obsolete....
There is no "I" in team but if you look damn hard enough there is a M and a E
:P
as player i have a Warlord character althought i am huge fan of Avengers and Rangers, but there is no "I" in team. that means no space for Egos....
as DM i understand your DM because if the group is unbalanced every "easy" encounter could be a TPK and all the future planning become obsolete....
But there is a "me" in team, and certainly no "us", "we" or other plural pronoun, so what's your point?
And the game can be adjusted for a lack of a leader. The DM could have asked for volunteers to mc healer and take some leadery powers, for instance, and the group should do fine.
and that group has a leader. In fact, it has the go to 4e leader. A shaman to get some multi-target heals wouldn't hurt, but isn't necessary. And either a shaman mc or skald mc will get an encounter heal without much of a sacrifice. (shaman is two feats, three to make the heal really good, so YMMV, but skald is just one feat. some way to get a skald at-will as encounter will boost your leader abillity, of course.)
There may be no 'I' in team, but there is a problem if someone's playstyle doesn't match what he has to play.
I tried to play a Leader character and the only thing I managed is get the party killed because I just strode forward and tried to take on the enemy like a mix of Defender and Striker. I simply can't play a Leader. And I was sure that everyone in our community knew that.
Maybe the lesson didn't stick?
Maybe you should ask the group "Hey, remember how I played that last leader? You know, the one that got us all TPKd? Well that's exactly how I'm going to play this leader. Anyone mind another TPK?"
On the + side.... If that TPK happens soon enough noone will have very much invested in their characters. AND you'll be right there to snatch a new role for yourself.
But there is a "me" in team, and certainly no "us", "we" or other plural pronoun, so what's your point?
my point is dont be a puss... because everyone around you becomes bugged if you are the only one who complaints about the game.
The group has 7 people. 1 Barbarian, 1 Warlock, 1 Ranger, 2 Fighters, 1 General, all level 8. And then there is me.
I think we have a slight translation difficulty (in that one word in one language can have more than one equivalent in another) here, and the English name for the "General" class is "Warlord" (subclass "Marshall", which is silly because there is no other subcl;ass of "Warlord" yet - why did they bother, when the original Ranger class still has no subclass name but has two other named subclasses?).
(For non-game-specific translation, "General", "Marshall", and "Warlord" all have similar military meanings but the first two are more formal and imply a large organization generally recognized as legitimate and subsidiary to a proper government, while "Warlord" is shall we say less stringent.)
In 4e, General is a Martial Leader class. It uses powers based on the Martial power source that revolve around buffing and healing.
... and handing out free-action movement, and handing out free-action attacks.
In fact, if you really want to play a striker but the group needs another leader... a well-built Warlord is an excellent striker, particularly with a Barbarian in the party. (Bonus damage? "I hit you with my sword, so I get to take an extra swing at you with my Barbarian - and, this round, another swing with my Fighter.")
And there is no problem with having even four or five Warlords in the party, provided each has a different Presence. (The benefits from two of the same Presence don't stack.) Plus, Warlords have a good selection of both melee and ranged powers - all Str-based.
If you have a lot of melee combatants in there but no long range, consider an Archer Warlord with either Tactical Presence or Skirmishing Presence. (The latter is normally second-tier, but it's better for an Archer, better in a large party, and better if another Warlord already has Tactical Presence covered. Put all three circumstances together and it's sweet.) Or if you need a lot more healing, Inspiring Presence allows a Warlord to be a top-tier healer almost rivaling the Pacifist Cleric - while also being rather more damaging.
But there is a "me" in team, and certainly no "us", "we" or other plural pronoun, so what's your point?
my point is dont be a puss... because everyone around you becomes bugged if you are the only one who complaints about the game.
There is no good reason to play something you don't want to play.
There is no good reason to play something you don't want to play.
The rest of the group has asked you to and you are willing to suck it up for the sake of hanging with your friends and making the game happen.
Its your turn in the rotation.
You get something better in return. "If you play the cleric, I will buy your share of pizza for the rest of the campaign".
There is no good reason to play something you don't want to play.
- The rest of the group has asked you to and you are willing to suck it up for the sake of hanging with your friends and making the game happen.
- Its your turn in the rotation.
- You get something better in return. "If you play the cleric, I will buy your share of pizza for the rest of the campaign".
To quible and be a bit pedantic, those are three good reasons that might make one want to play the cleric, even though it would not be one's first choice.
If, even after any such incentivies, one still does not want to play a character it is very bad form to force a player to play such a character. Of course the proper response for the player in such an impass it so say, "Thanks for inviting me to play, but I don't think I will. You all have fun."
Bottom line - the DM is under no obligation to run games for a group with a mix of roles that he/she is not happy with. A good DM should do everything they can to make the game enjoyable for their players, except where doing so will stop the DM from having fun. Why? Because if one player is not having fun and everyone else is, then the campaign is over for that player. If the DM isn't having fun, then the campaign is over for everyone...
Well, I have talked about my predicament with someone else, and she has pretty much told me the same as you, tell this guy to go buzz himself and back off the game. And as a bonus, she has pointed me towards a game she's gonna DM that looks promising. So I'm just gonna do that.
Thanks for your help. I'll keep your advice in mind for the next time someone tries to tell me to play something I don't want.
Or.... When "forced" to play a certain role? Make it your own & do your own thing with it.
Ex; In previous editions Clerics only healed/buffed when they chose the correct spells. Otherwise....
"Oh, I'm sorry, YOU mistook me for a healer...." I was still 100% usefull within the party, but nobody ever tried to make me play the cleric again against my wishes.
I assume you can do the same within 4e.
Had that same thing. First fight, I charge in with the fighter (2nd ed). After the battle the theif is down to half hp, wizard down to 1, and fighter and 3/4. I heal the mage and fighter, with the reasoning of 'a mage on your side will be better in the long run' and 'the fighter and me are going to have so much fun next fight.' Theif complained.. I pointed out I was a specialty priest of a war god, and not a healbot. Now granted they tried to make me do it again..but then I took absoluetely no healing spells that time.
There is no good reason to play something you don't want to play.
- [reasons]
To quible and be a bit pedantic, those are three good reasons that might make one want to play the cleric, even though it would not be one's first choice.If, even after any such incentivies, one still does not want to play a character it is very bad form to force a player to play such a character.
The bit I was responding to says "there is no reason to play something you dont want to". I provided reasons you may. Nothing about forcing another player to play something they don't want to.